Liveblogging the Bible: Galatians

1:3 Grace, when used by Paul, is more than a customary greeting. It is loaded with theological implications.

1:15 For example, here it clearly carries hints of predestination. If others, like Paul, were set apart before birth, I ask again what good it is to proselytize.

2:1 Quite a jump in the timeline here. The fact that he skips directly to his visits to Jerusalem is surely no accident, and must relate to his message to the Galatians.

2:2 And I think we get a hint of it here, in his repeated reference to the other Apostles. On the surface he is bolstering his own credentials, but in light of the context, he may well be trying to bolster theirs. He even claims to have compared his version of the gospel with theirs, just to verify what he received by inspiration.

2:6 This verse has grave implications. Does he mean to indicate that those who questioned his fitness in Acts were false apostles?

2:10 Didn't he earlier claim not to have met any of the other apostles beside James and Peter? Shall we add John here to the list, or was this not a direct meeting? And of all the things to ask him for, they only were concerned with money?

2:11 Oh, Peter. You're just a mess sometimes.

2:16 He hits this so briefly, it takes on the flavor of established theology. Certainly not a new argument to his audience.

3:2 Neither option seems very convincing . . .

3:10 Although Paul is clearly leaning toward the latter choice. This is a nice interpretation, of the Law as well. Any law, by extension, that includes a curse to those who do not follow it perfectly, by Paul's reasoning here curses those who accept it as well.

3:17 Quite a lovely argument. Paul establishes God's promise to bless the nations through Abraham as a sort of legal precedent after which the Mosaic Law was invalid, in a way.

3:25 To what extent is this true? The central hole in the argument for faith is that then no line is ever drawn.

4:1 A nice continuation of the metaphor. The Mosaic Law in this framework is just the executor of the Abrahamic Covenant, until the beneficiaries are of age.

4:10 How do the Witnesses not fixate on this scripture in their argument against the celebration of holidays? It seems that it would give more strength to their argument than all the other justifications they use combined.

4:13 Is he referring to his eyesight here? If so, in what way did it put the Galatians to the test?

4:17 although the referent of "They" here is no doubt clear to the Galatians, it is a mystery to the modern reader.

4:21 It is clear exactly what the nature of their mistake is. Will the specter of the Mosaic Law never leave?

5:3 Another convincing argument. Who would want to be held to the entire Law? Then why be held to a part of it?

5:12 A strong and fitting curse.

5:22 I am more accustomed to the translation "faith" than "faithfulness", but the NRSV usage here makes sense. After all, according to Paul, faith is a source of spirit, rather than a result of it.

6:8 And here is Paul's other quibble with the Galatians: that they are behaving physically, which is not independent of their silly subscription to circumcision.

6:12 a connection that does not escape Paul, of course.

6:15 The Witness' proscription of blood transfusions really has no solid Biblical basis, as far as I can tell, but I have always considered it rather a good idea from their perspective. It serves to separate them from others, to distinguish them in a way that reminds them of their identity. From a organizational, if not from a theological standpoint, it's a good idea. But Paul here is cautioning against such physical determinations. It is indeed a fleshly concern, whether one receives blood or not, and as such should be beneath those whose spirits are sufficiently advanced.